Marijuana Use and Perceptions of Risk and Harm: A Survey among Canadians in 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To describe marijuana use by Canadians and their perceptions of risk and harm.Design: A cross-sectional, structured, online and telephone survey. Participants: A nationally representative sample of Canadians.Methods: This survey used random probability sampling and targeted respondents based on age, sex, region and their expected response rate.Results: Of the 20% of respondents reporting marijuana use in the past 12 months, they were more likely to be younger and male.The most common form of use was smoking, 79%.When asked about harmfulness, 42% and 41% responded that they considered marijuana more harmful than helpful to mental health and to physical health, respectively.When asked about driving under the influence, 71% responded that it was the same as alcohol.Conclusion: This research is important for health providers and policy makers seeking to maximize public health through clinical and legislative reform of non-medical use of marijuana. RésuméObjectifs : Décrire l' usage de la marijuana chez les Canadiens ainsi que leurs perceptions des risques et dommages.Conception : Sondage transversal structuré, en ligne et téléphonique. Participants : Échantillon national représentatif des Canadiens.Méthodes : Ce sondage a eu recours à un échantillonnage probabiliste aléatoire et à des répondants ciblés selon l'âge, le sexe, la région et le taux de réponse escompté.Résultats : Les 20 % de répondants qui ont indiqué avoir fait usage de la marijuana au cours des 12 derniers mois sont plus susceptibles d'être des jeunes hommes.La forme d' usage la plus courante est par l'inhalation de fumée, 79 %.Au sujet de la nocivité, 42 % et 41 % ont répondu qu'ils considéraient la marijuana plus dommageable que salutaire pour la santé mentale et la santé physique, respectivement.Au sujet de la conduite sous influence, 71 % ont répondu que c'était comme pour l' alcool.Conclusion : Cette recherche est importante pour les fournisseurs de services de santé et les responsables de politiques qui veulent maximiser la santé publique par une réforme clinique et législative de l' usage non médical de la marijuana.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".